1. Afterlife Forums is an online, interactive community designed to give seekers direct access to prominent researchers, to afterlife literature, and to one another in order to foster both spiritual growth and public interest in life after death.
    Dismiss Notice

What do you consider valid ADC?

Discussion in 'After-Death Communication' started by Mark Zerafa, Dec 27, 2016.

  1. Mark Zerafa

    Mark Zerafa New Member

    Hello everyone.

    I have just lost someone extremely dear to me and its heartbreaking.

    I have been reading up on contact with the hereafter but I sincerely believe that purported communications such as dreams, smells and sensing the spirit of our dear departed are not valid. These can be easily explained away as pareidolia, autosuggestion and a dose of wishful thinking. I am sorry if this sounds blunt.

    The only thing that can do justice to the cause would be acquiring clear, no nonsense, objective and verifiable information. All else is vague and subject to psychology.

    What are your thoughts?
    Best wishes
    mark
     
  2. milahanna

    milahanna Member

    I have the same concerns specially since I don't feel that I've received a sign.
     
    Mark Zerafa likes this.
  3. Mark Zerafa

    Mark Zerafa New Member

    If we are to validate this field of research, such unconvincing scientifically unsound "evidence" needs to be completely disregarded. In fact citing this sort of non-phenomenon gives a bad reputation to what is possibly the most important research mankind can ever undertake. Perhaps this is one very important reason why the paranormal is not taken seriously by mainstream scientists. I don't blame them if we consider a mere dream as evidence. Of course we dream of our dead loved ones. Its to be expected. Nothing to write home about here.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2016
  4. mac

    mac long-term contributor

    Earth sciences aren't applicable to trans-dimension communications. I regret to say that you're unlikely to find a scientifically-based proof that our loved ones live on in a dimension we know little about scientifically. If you're unable to accept evidence of survival and/or unable to accept the teachings of individuals widely seen as spiritually-advanced, then you may have a frustrating time ahead of you.

    I see it this way. If you're hurting desperately but only scientifically proven data is acceptable then you'll likely find little relief from the pain of bereavement by searching. If, however, you're prepared to consider others' testimonies and innumerable accounts of contact between 'us-and-them', then you may find at least some relief. You're not unique in your loss. Many have similar pain. You stand a good chance of moving forward because you're here, now, and talking about things.
     
  5. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Dear friends, I wouldn't believe in this stuff either if the dead were not themselves confirming that this scent or that cloud of butterflies - or whatever - had come from them. I have seen these confirmations too many times for me to any longer doubt them.

    Mark and Milahanna and so many others here, you are new to this game. I have been doing this for fifty years, and I can tell you without equivocation that our core problem is that a hundred years ago mainstream scientific gatekeepers established materialism as the fundamental scientific "dogma," and since in fact now it is well established that nothing whatsoever is material, mainstream science has essentially gone off the rails. If you hope for help from science, you are hoping in vain! They will look at this evidence objectively only after we have shamed them into doing it, and that process may take a decade or two longer. Meanwhile, fortunately, the evidence is clear enough that you don't need them - you can do the science yourselves!
     
    Unexpected likes this.
  6. Mark Zerafa

    Mark Zerafa New Member

    Please do excuse my ignorance Roberta. I am trying to learn. How do the dead confirm that they are behind a scent or a a cloud of butterflies?
     
  7. Juniper

    Juniper Member

    Mark, many people, myself included, have had dreams of people who are no longer among the living where they knew things about them they had no way to know or even guess at sometimes. One person I knew had this happen regularly. Often people appeared to her the very night they died and told her they had died. Sometimes she had been long out off contact with them and had no other way to know they'd die just then. Other times they died suddenly in accidents. She could know specific details of what happened that she would not have a logical means of knowing.

    There is no reason to assume that spirits must produce the kind of proof science might demand for them to really exist either. Even if they do, you can't further assume they will in every experience you have with them.

    The best thing you could probably do is, rather than look for stories like the ones I just mentioned (which can be found if you look in certain areas and dig deep enough), go look for ways to connect to spirits and see if you can't have your own direct experiences. After all we could tell you story after story but in the end you could say you don't know us so why believe it?

    It may take a long time and a lot of work though to arrive at something that challenges your view of reality.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2016
    Unexpected likes this.
  8. Juniper

    Juniper Member

    Now to contradict what I just said, about getting direct experience, see this movie and read the caption (I haven't watched the full movie but it explains in the caption below the movie what is relevant to this discussion):



    Also on the point about people sensing the presence of someone who died see this....

     
  9. Mark Zerafa

    Mark Zerafa New Member

    Thank you dear friends for sharing your insights.

    I am not saying that the evidence for survival is not there. I am saying that phenomena such as ITC and certain types of mediumship .. not least, physical mediumship may produce the kind of objective repeatable evidence required for absolute certainty. I have to say i have been positively impressed by Marcello Bacci's work. I think it is such lines of evidence that we need to pursue. Such evidence is not subject to "contamination" with our own psychology, drives and desires.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2016
    Goldie and Ken like this.
  10. Ken

    Ken Member

    Marcello is an interesting character but I would need someone like James Randi to check it out for me first. o_O
     
    Mark Zerafa likes this.
  11. mac

    mac long-term contributor

    I
    Compared with Roberta's 50 years of investigating/researching or George Cranley's encyclopaedic knowledge of physical mediumship and communication, someone who knew and sat with many physical mediums of those days, I'm just a beginner with just 32 years 'in the spooks'. I guess with every new generation new seekers emerge with the desire to 'prove' survival either to themselves and/or to others.... "Nothing new under the sun." is a saying I frequently use.

    At nearly 70 years old my tack has changed. Instead of immediately rising to the taunt "Prove that there's an afterlife." etc I'm minded simply to say "You PROVE there isn't and I'll change my approach."
     
  12. mac

    mac long-term contributor

    Wouldn't you think Bacci has been investigated already?
     
  13. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Yep! Many, many times.
     
  14. RobertaGrimes

    RobertaGrimes Administrator

    Oh my, dear Ken, how little you know!

    Debunkerism is the literal opposite of an open-minded pursuit of the truth, and Randi is one of the leading current debunkers. It's all a trick. Their most common device is to try to find out just enough to be able to spot what they think is some essential aspect of an afterlife-related phenomenon, and they find an alternative way to produce something like the same result, and then they claim the whole phenomenon has been debunked. It hasn't been, of course, but unless you are willing to investigate the matter more completely, you might believe their intellectually lazy nonsense. Please don't let yourself be fooled!
     
    Widdershins3 likes this.
  15. Mark Zerafa

    Mark Zerafa New Member

    I am very sorry Mac. That is not the way it works. Prove to me that there is no flying spaghetti monster. You can't prove his non-existencr. Ergo, his noodliness exists?

    On the other hand I am very enthusiastic about studying data generated by mediumistic sittings and ITC. I think these can provide irrefutable evidence if survival.
     
  16. mac

    mac long-term contributor

    Ah but that is the way it works for me, Mark.... Perhaps when you reach my age, when you've been persuaded as I and others have, then you may feel differently....

    Being unable to proving there is no "flying spaghetti monster" is a red herring because nobody (sane!) is alleging one exists or providing decades or more of evidence by uncountable numbers of individuals. Or communicated teachings by individuals widely-considered as spiritually evolved.

    And now in your last sentence you're talking about "irrefutable evidence of survival". Isn't that what we already have, what's already been done?

    How much more is needed?
     
    Unexpected likes this.
  17. Mark Zerafa

    Mark Zerafa New Member

    Mac... Perhaps its that I am mourning the loss of a person I loved so much, that I need as much evidence and proof as I can get. Perhaps I have an emotional need to experience irrefutable ADC. I just need to know that she's well. I just need to know I will hug her again. Yes... That's why I need more and more.
     
    Goldie likes this.
  18. mac

    mac long-term contributor

    Yes I see that and all general discussions mean little because you're seeking personal reassurance about your loved one. So many of us come to this topic through bereavement.
     
  19. Mark Zerafa

    Mark Zerafa New Member


    It would be interesting to see a confused and embarrassed Randi trying hard to debunk Marcello. It would vindicate Marcello's research beautifully.
     
    Goldie likes this.
  20. mac

    mac long-term contributor

    Bacci doesn't need Randi and neither does his work. It's sad, though, that outside of the cognoscenti the ITC he achieves isn't likely to be much known about or acknowledged. And his attributes as a physical medium are needed for communication to be successful.
     

Share This Page